O'Connors 15B wishlist.....

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ok I was looking at Gord's request and I noticed the sole naval entry on it and I noticed its for 2 naval supply vessels. My question is has the JSS requirement been downgraded from 3 to 2? My next question is how much will this cut into the future sealift ability that the JSS was touted for. Thoughts?l

 

[Chubbard]

I saw that on the CBC as well.
My thought is the CBC isnt composed of the sharpest knives in the drawer.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I saw that on the CBC as well.
My thought is the CBC isnt composed of the sharpest knives in the drawer.

The papers here are still saying that Irving is hoping to get the contract and it's for 3.
I'd concur with the "not so sharp" comment.

 

[Kirkhill]

On CTV they were reporting 2x Oilers.  Not 2 or 3 x JSS.

Craig Oliver did say there was more to follow after these, the C17s, Hercs and Chinooks.  Its starting to sound like the 12 days of Christmas.  I wonder when you get the partridge in a pear tree.

 

[Franko]

Seems that they are wanting to replace the supply ships....at least that's what they are saying in the reports.

Regards

 

[Mortar guy]

Don't forget that the ALSC project (pre-JSS) called for four ships.

Maybe they're right and we're only getting 2 ships so that money can be made available for the BHS.

MG

 

[-dikweed-]

I was under the impression that the Tories have never really like the JSS concept?  Is it possible that they've withdrawn the sealift requirement from the project?

 

[Kirkhill]

I was under the impression that the Tories have never really like the JSS concept?  Is it possible that they've withdrawn the sealift requirement from the project?

As a personal opinion, I can only hope.

 

[karl28]

Just a curious not wasn't the original bill like  8billion ? that was for the 4  c-17 , I think it was like 12 c-130j plus a number of SAR fixed wings and chinooks helicopter plus 3JSS  and new trucks for the army ?  Whats the extra  7 billion for ? are they getting more planes ? would be nice or  is the extra cash for service contracts to help the  maintenance cost  for  the new equipment ? I first noticed the change in cash last night on sympatico.ca web site  sorry for not having more accurate sources

 

[Sub_Guy]

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp

Have a read, it will clear things up on the JSS, this project is going strong, and we can expect to hear an announcement soon... If you have a read through the various documents it states that we Need 3  but want 4.

In the who knows..........we are making it work right now with 2, but the new ones will have smaller crews so we should be able to man all 3

 

[Kirkhill]

Sub_Guy

Might it not all have to do with scheduling as well? It's going to take a few years to get the first one built I'm guessing. Commit to the second and take an option on the third?  Manage the cash flow/political damage that way?

 

[karl28]

Sub_Guy  thanks allot for the link I will most defiantly read it

 

[Kirkhill]

Sub_Guy:

Nevermind.  I found the answer.  As you suggested.  Read. :-[

 

[Cloud Cover]

The flight deck requirements set at 1 spot [essential] and 2 spots [desirable] suggest to me there is another class of vessel in the offing if there is to be any thought going over the shore.

 

[FSTO]

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp

Have a read, it will clear things up on the JSS, this project is going strong, and we can expect to hear an announcement soon... If you have a read through the various documents it states that we Need 3  but want 4.

In the who knows..........we are making it work right now with 2, but the new ones will have smaller crews so we should be able to man all 3

Smaller Crews :
Lets go dept by dept:

Combat; with the MOSART (you are a NESOP, NACOP and NCIOP combined until QL5) the manning requirements are reduced. NAVCOMMS, maybe reduced with elimination of the bridge signalman. (only up there for RAS or OOW Maneuvers)

CSE: Lack of wpns means less NWT's, although more electronics (CCT for space monitoring) may increase the need.

MSE: Big savings here if the Navy embraces remote sensing of spaces and equipment monitoring

Air: The Air Force is always overmanned for everything  ;D

Deck: With RAS and other seamanship duties I doubt if there will be much savings there.

Logistics: No Stewards?
The biggest hurdle is ships husbandry. I know that everyone hates cleaning stations but wait until you are living in a dirty ship. You'll change your tune very quick.

I think that there will be a small reduction in crew sizes but not enough to allow us to man a third ship with the manning savings of two.

 

[navymich]

FSTO, I like how your crews don't include officers.  ;D

 

[Navalsnpr]

Everyone also has to realize that all trades also have to perform specific jobs during action/emergency stations.

I'll be the first to agree that there are too many stewards onboard, however they are also our causality clearing team. If you drastically reduce the size of your MSE department, who will be available for FSB, ASB & SB3?? In the CSE trade we are part of the ERT organization as well as HAZMAT cleanup team.

To Float, To Move, To Fight... you must have a ship's company large enough in order to accomplish these three tasks, if you can not, then you are certainly undermanned.

As for the Officer Corps onboard, it really depends on their job. MARS officers do complete a lot of time at sea, however SeaLog, CS & MS officers could use some more time at sea prior to their HOD tour.  Additionally, I still have the Army mentality that if you eat it, you hump it & therefore more hands make less work. Officers should be in the line humping groceries onboard and gash ashore, therefore permitting the lower decker's more time to accomplish their trade specific tasks.

 

[navymich]

Additionally, I still have the Army mentality that if you eat it, you hump it & therefore more hands make less work. Officers should be in the line humping groceries onboard and gash ashore, therefore permitting the lower decker's more time to accomplish their trade specific tasks.

+100!

Nothing irks me more then seeing the upper echelons sitting around drinking coffee and shooting the breeze, while the hands are busy with flash-up and storing ship, and then are complaining because the ship isn't ready to sail on time, or when they are sitting on their kit bags waiting to go home, while the hands are busy with post-sail and final cleaning stations and...and...and

 

[Kirkhill]

To Float, To Move, To Fight... you must have a ship's company large enough in order to accomplish these three tasks, if you can not, then you are certainly undermanned.

Sniper, I think you are making a really good case for creating a Naval Boarding Party trade.  There has been a bit of discussion about letting sailors sail and having soldiers come on board to conduct boarding parties etc.

If Boarding Parties (manpower intensive) are going to be part of the life of the Navy for the foreseeable future,
and if the ships themselves are going to need less "technical" manpower
but at the same time the ships need personnel for "general duties" (truer on a large ship it would seem - more deck, bulkheads, deckheads, hulls companionways to clean and paint)
and also needs personnel for keeping the ship afloat in emergencies

Then why not bring OS/ABs on board with a Bos'ns course behind them and CQB training and bring them on board as a Boarding Division?

Sailors first with soldiering skills seems to be the order of the day for Boarding Parties is what I take from previous discussions on the subject.  Heck, in their spare time they could even carry the junior snotty's duffel.  ;D

 

[navymich]

Then why not bring OS/ABs on board with a Bos'ns course behind them and CQB training and bring them on board as a Boarding Division?

First, it's more then just bosns that can be members of the boarding party.  And second, I think that OS/ABs should be concentrating on learning their way around a ship, working on OJT packages and such before they become a part of the NBP.

Other than that, I think it would work great to have it as a separate trade/entity.  And if you set up the teams similar to air crews where they belong to a specific ship, but are only on the ship when it deploys, they could maintain their skills, or be available to backfill on other teams as required.